House Democrats Sit-In To Ignore The Fifth Amendment (Thereby Disgracing Themselves)

Sit in

When is it not a partisan act to condemn an entire political party and the followers who applaud it no matter what it does?

One example is unfolding before us: the Republican Party’s absence of sufficient integrity, principle and will to deny Donald Trump the party’s endorsement and nomination for President. It’s not a partisan act to condemn this. It is objective, rational, and responsible.

It is similarly objective, rational and fair to condemn the Democratic Party and its blind, knee-jerk followers for engaging in one of the most cynical, hypocritical and pandering displays in memory: the current “sit-in” to force the House to vote on anti-gun bills that unambiguously bypass the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, denying American citizens their civil rights by government edict.

House Democrats, symbolically led by Rep. John Lewis, the elderly civil rights icon who seems now bent on making an ass of himself, have vowed to “occupy” the House Chamber until the no-fly list ban on gun purchasing is voted on, essentially shutting down that side of Congress.  For those whose brains are functioning, this is about as naked a display of political cynicism as we have seen, even topping Ted Cruz’s destructive government shut-downs.

Two days ago, it was Senate Democrats not Republicans, who voted down a bill that would have given the Justice Department power to block gun purchases by anyone on a terror watch list, provided that the government fulfilled its duty of  due process but going to court and satisfying to a judge  that the person on the list was there was a compelling reason to regard the citizen as a public threat. actually dangerous. That was the bill put forth by Senator Cornyn, a Republican. But Democrats could have the gun control provision they were screaming for be the work of that evil, NRA supported party, so it died in the Senate, 53/47, when enough Democrats voted against it to deny the 60 votes it needed for cloture.

Now the House Democrats are grandstanding and acting like children. Yesterday,  the House Democrats chanted from the floor: “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired!” and “No bill, no break!” while the House remained in recess.

It is unconstitutional to allow the  federal government power to strip the rights from citizens who have been convicted of nothing without the protection og judicial safeguards.If there is any significant controversy about this, I can’t find it. The theory seems to be that because Democrats don’t like Second Amendment rights, they don’t count, somehow. You know, Democrats aren’t crazy about First Amendment rights either.  Perhaps this is why that liberal champion of long standing, the American Civil Liberties Union, opposes the no-fly bills as vehemently as the NRA. They opposed the Cornyn bill, the closest to one that acknowledges the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Democratic, “Due process? What is this due process of which you speak?” capitulations to hysteria, writing in a letter to Senators:

We believe that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death.  Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health.  At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy.

These people are obviously gun nuts.

In a post on its website, the ACLU elaborated…

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names…

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

To this reasoned, principled, legally-researched and accurate assessment, we got this blather from Lewis in an interview with Wolf Blizter:

“Too many of our children, too many of our sisters and brothers, our mothers and fathers, our friends, our cousins are dying by guns and we have to do something about it.”

“Do something.

Do something, and the best this civil rights warrior and his apparently completely integrity-free party can come up with is to attack civil rights.

I just noticed that Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proclaimed her support of the sit-in, and thus her willingness to nullify the right of due process. Good lord. She was a Harvard law professor, and she’s so corrupt with partisanship that she can’t muster the courage to say to her party, “I’m sorry, but this is just wrong.”

As with Warren, we have to presume Lewis knows better. Rep. Lewis himself was once put on a no-fly list. Perhaps maybe instead of being a hypocrite or a liar, or even a loyal buffoon defying the values and principles he has spent his life fighting for so his party can lock up the votes of gays and gun-o-phobes, he’s just senile. At least that would be an excuse. What is the excuse for the rest of his party behaving in this appalling manner?

I can’t see any.

In case you missed recent posts on this topic, the most extensive ones are here, here and here.

 

125 thoughts on “House Democrats Sit-In To Ignore The Fifth Amendment (Thereby Disgracing Themselves)

  1. I’ll take the blather and the do something about it even if it is a baby step. Have to start somewhere. Hats off to rep. Moulton.

    • Huh? You think defying the Fifth Amendment is a “baby step”? How about “do something that’s legal, that won’t scar the Bill of Rights and that has some chance of working”–how about that?

      • Do something that won’t scar the innocent.How about that! I’m for as much legislation as possible to curtail access to fire arms.

        • Rick, in this country, one is presumed innocent, suspicions notwithstanding. You want to change that to prevent the occasional tragedy? What’s the matter with you? That’s not a responsible or rational position. Go ahead and see if you can get the 2nd Amendment amended or repealed. That’s your option. Good luck. Don’t endanger my right to not be labelled a limited citizen because something I say rubs a bureaucrat the wrong way.

          • You know my feelings on guns. I would have everyone on the fly and no fly list placed in the same kettle.

            I have no idea of why such protectionism exists towards weapons that have no real use other than create a killing field. Our politicians certainly have the ability to curtail access and right now the Democrats have taken the leadership role on this issue. If theater helps get the message out then go for it.

            I don’t care about the specifics of a gun as all I know is that the one used in Florida was capable of firing a substantial number of rounds in a brief period of time. When that is done you simply insert another clip and repeat the process. I would not own a gun for any reason. That is a personal choice – got that! Personal choice! I also support strict gun legislation and the stricter the better. I’m all for it.

            Now I realize to some with some mental health issues there is the full panic mode that Black and Hispanic marauders may invade their white bread neighborhood or that Hillary and her minions wish to disarm one and all. The mental coup de grace is the fact that the government is just itching to take over and control us like a bunch of zombies. There is not enough Zoloft manufactured on the planet to even have me attempt to comprehend that scenario.

            • Your “feelings” are no more relevant to the legislative process than anyone else’s. Your last paragraph is delusional.

            • You’re afraid. You’re attempting to push policy on other people (personal choice, my ass) from a position of fear. Irrational fear. Crippling fear. Fear based on a lack of understanding, a lack of wanting to understand. It must be a horrible way to live.

            • You’re a smart guy, and so this crazy and contradictory rant would qualify as exhibit A of how gun-phobia has eaten the b rains and values of a lot of otherwise rational people. That you have no use for guns does not mean that other don’t. That some people wish to use guns illegally does not justify taking away the rights of people to use then responsibly. That you can’t see any “real uses” for guns as a matter of self-defense strikes me as denial. The home invasion in Cheshire, Conn., might have been stopped if the homeowner could have put his hands on an AR-15. Maybe not…but if having a gun at the ready makes others in that community feel a bit less helpless, that’s a right worth protecting.

              In the Rodney King riots, black “marauders” invaded Korean neighborhoods as cops fled. Those citizens with guns kept their property. Don’t say, “Yeah well, that was an exception.” One keeps guns for the one time—exceptions—that you wish you had one.

              Your statement translates to “Guns Bad.” Guns aren’t bad; they have been essential to the growth and survival of America.

              Your last paragraph is just silly. Since it is impossible to legally keep bad people from owning guns without preventing law abiding people from owning guns, and since infringing on due process to try to identify potentially dangerous people before they actually do anything erodes everybody’s rights, the only way to achieve the gun control objectives of policy-makers like Obama and Hillary is, in fact, to ban guns. That’s what their followers believe too—push them, and they’ll invoke Australia and Great Britain.

              You have answered my question: I now know what is wrong with you on this topic. You’re 1) hysterical and 2) naive. To believe, with everything we have seen in the last 20 years, that this government, any government, can be absolutely trusted to not use force to encroach on our rights requires epic blindness. No, it’s not likely to happen here. It’s still a hell of a lot more likely after the government has disarmed the public.

              • In the Rodney King riots, black “marauders” invaded Korean neighborhoods as cops fled. Those citizens with guns kept their property. Don’t say, “Yeah well, that was an exception.” One keeps guns for the one time—exceptions—that you wish you had one.

                this does also prove that conventional law enforcement is woefuklly insufficient, and that the military should take their place.

                Could you imagine what would happen if the military did what the LAPD did during the riots, and fled? They would have been executed for cowardice! One of the biggest mistakes made in the aftermath was not placing Los Angeles under permanent martial law, abolishing civil authority there.

            • Rick M. said, I have no idea of why such protectionism exists towards weapons…”

              I finally get it; you and those like you are ignorant, so that automatically means that the 2nd Amendment it’s wrong.

              It’s hard to argue with ignorant people.

          • Rick, in this country, one is presumed innocent, suspicions notwithstanding. You want to change that to prevent the occasional tragedy?

            Already changed. We have a no fly list.

            • There’s no constitutional right to fly. It’s another matter to strip an enumerated right without due process or even notice. I suggest we also create a no-breed list, so that the next generation is only the people we want.

                • Because practicing medicine is a job for which one devotes great time, money, and effort to train for. That is vastly different from “getting on an airplane.”

              • Which is like saying there’s no right to have a morning cup of coffee even though stores sell it. Due process also covers privileges. You have the right to contract with a common carrier for transport. You have the right to travel between states, that’s what essential liberty is.

                You might be able to convince me that denying someone firearms based on the list is as great a violation. I don’t see how you can argue that it is the greater violation. And thus you ca’t convince me that denying the ability to purchase firearms is a change to the idea that someone is presumed innocent.

                We are already there.

                You will also have a hard time convincing me that the people who suddenly care because OMG precious guns give a flying fig about due process.

                • To be fair, some of us concerned about due process consistently do so. If you meant the senators, well, I can’t really disagree. Except for Rand Paul, I doubt many of them are principled supporters of due process.

                • Well, at least one federal judge has said that the no-fly list is unconstitutional, but ignoring that…

                  All the time – every day – people lose the ability to legally drive a car without any due process – individual Secretaries of State pull DLs all the time for people merely accused of DUIs. This is considered constitutional because, again, driving isn’t a right, just like flying isn’t.

                  The fact that I only might be able to convince you that suspending someone’s explicitly stated Constitutional Right to firearms without anything even approaching Due Process (no hearing, no formal charges, just an unelected bureaucrat filling a form) speaks volumes for you and those like you.

                  I don’t much care if someone likes guns or not, I have a right to my guns, and I have a right to buy more if I am able to agree on a price with someone else. Period. End of story. Your fears are immaterial. They do not, should not have any bearing on what my rights are.

                  If you are willing to violate a right that is explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, then you have no ground to protest something like, say, abortion being amazingly restricted. I assume you wouldn’t be OK with using a list (that is secret, un-reviewed, for which there is no clear mechanism to get off of, and is created by a nameless and faceless bureaucrat unanswerable to you or anyone else) to prevent a woman from getting an abortion.

                  “But Captain,” you say, “abortion is a Right! The Supreme Court says so!”

                  Well, it also says that guns are a Right, but that isn’t stopping you right now, is it? You really want to set a precedent where people you don’t agree with can just strip you of something you hold to be important just because they don’t like it?

                  I would remind you, and fascist dolts like Rick M., that gun deaths are at a fifty year low. AR-15s are used in less than 300 murders a year (we can’t know how many because the category is “rifles” and that includes bolt-action, pump-action, and lever-action along with semi-automatic rifles). More people die each year by being punched and kicked to death. More kids die by choking on hot dogs or drowning in pools than by rifles, and yet it is guns you seek to abolish. I suspect that is because you know how staggeringly stupid you would sound if you said you wanted to get rid of (or restrict ownership of) backyard pools.

                  No, instead you make up words and definitions (my favorite was the Sports News guy that said he was going to call a semi-automatic a machine gun, because we “don’t get to pick [his] terms.” (https://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/status/745734767094697984 ). Your kind lies and you exaggerates and ignores anything that does not fit within your tiny, warped world-view.

                  You want to stop people from getting guns? Take them to court and prove your case, but by God they get to defend themselves.

                  • All the time – every day – people lose the ability to legally drive a car without any due process – individual Secretaries of State pull DLs all the time for people merely accused of DUIs. This is considered constitutional because, again, driving isn’t a right, just like flying isn’t.

                    In what states? Is it a mere suspension or revocation?

                    Driving is not a fundamental right, so the state can put the burden of proof on applicants to demonstrate that they meet the statutory qualifications for a driver’s license. And the standard of proof could be preponderance of the evidence.

                    But it would seem to me that using mere suspicion of disqualifying factors as a basis for denial implicates procedural due process.

                    A similar principle applies to the unemployment benefits in California. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate eligibility. That does not mean that mere suspicion of ineligibility is sufficient to deny unemployment benefits.

                    • They are suspensions, which is what the inability to buy a gun would be under the proposed system – once you aren’t being investigated, you get your right to buy again.

                      And the proposed law violate Due Process because the person who;s right to buy a gun is being abridged has no chance to dispute the government’s claim before their liberty is reduced.

                      you are confusing the issue – the law as proposed means that mere suspicion is enough to deny the right to buy a gun. Not even probable cause, just suspicion.

                • Sure, you’re free to move around the country…

                  Doesn’t say anything about HOW you move around, and not being able to fly doesn’t stop you from taking the bus, or the train, or driving yourself…

                  • What would stop the government from forbidding all those things to you without due process?

                    Are you saying walking is the only right? What would that mean when you can’t exactly be a pedestrian on a public highway and you can’t cross private property without the owner’s leave. I could make it to Indiana on foot or Wisconsin though I’d probably be picked up for vagrancy since I don’t think I could do it in a day. I’d be impossible to cross Wyoming.

                    If the government can deny modes of travel they can deny interstate travel.

                    For the gun people who are against the no-fly list I’m on your side, we both want the same thing. Both of our problems would be solved in this instance with the same act, abolishing the list, we have common cause. For the ones who aren’t fighting it, it is unreasonable of you to want me to support you because all that’s happening is that what you’re willing to do to others is coming back to you.

                    • What would stop the government from forbidding all those things to you without due process?

                      Oh, well then, why even bother, right? Let’s just say “screw it” and toss anyone who looks at us funny or says anything critical about anything ever in jail. I mean, what’s to stop them, right? Why should we even bother…

                      What stops them is what I used to think was a robust respect for Due Process and the Rule of Law, but apparently I’ve given everyone far too much credit because they are more than willing to befoul themselves if it means their bet obsession gets hurt while they dick over everyone’s rights.

                      As it stands, I suspect all that stops them is that they don’t know that so many people are willing to allow their most important rights be stripped away simply because they have yet to have a need for them.

                      Are you saying walking is the only right?

                      Are you high?

                      What would that mean when you can’t exactly be a pedestrian on a public highway and you can’t cross private property without the owner’s leave. I could make it to Indiana on foot or Wisconsin though I’d probably be picked up for vagrancy since I don’t think I could do it in a day. I’d be impossible to cross Wyoming.

                      Funny, They did a lot of that in the 1800s. From Virginia to Oregon, even.Again, you’re free to move about – the government is not required to allow you to drive, or else they couldn’t revoke or suspend your driver’s license. But hey, I dunno why you’re having a problem with this – your side is currently saying how awesome no-fly lists are.

                      If the government can deny modes of travel they can deny interstate travel.

                      Again, people crossed huge swaths of land long before airplanes, or even cars. Many did it without horses. Soldiers in the civil war walked virtually everywhere, and over huge distances. Those who settled the West crossed an entire continent with at BEST a covered wagon.

                      Your complaint is convenience, and that’s never been the government’s concern.

                      Ever.

                      For the gun people who are against the no-fly list I’m on your side, we both want the same thing. Both of our problems would be solved in this instance with the same act, abolishing the list, we have common cause. For the ones who aren’t fighting it, it is unreasonable of you to want me to support you because all that’s happening is that what you’re willing to do to others is coming back to you.

                      I’m sorry, you mistook me for someone who doesn’t want to set fire to all of Washington and have it burn to ash.

                      Then invent and build a machine to burn that ash. The build another machine to burn the first machine and the ash it created.

                      What, did you think there was more? That I was going to say “and then start all over”?

                      lolno.

                      Salt the earth, and let the land lay barren.

        • These positions always seem so juvenile to me. It’s like at some point the proponents just stop thinking…. They see a problem, brainstorm a sinle solution, and then act like that solution is the only logical course of action and that anyone not agreeing with them is a jerk and a moron, all the time never taking that additional leap in logic as to what their ‘solution’ would do outside what it was designed for, or even IF it would do what it is designed for.

          Guns are a Pavolvian trigger to these people: See a gun, call for it to be banned. Orlando? All about the guns. Or Christianity. Or “Toxic Masculinity”… Islam? Did you just say ISLAM!?! You racist, xenophobic, homophobic bigot!. This discussion has been brilliantly shifted onto guns, because the Islam discussion was uncomfortable to the people who control the media, and therefore the discussion. We give the gun debate legitimacy by engaging it.’You’re talking about gun control? Now we can’t talk about anything else until we shout you down for how wrong you are.’

          The problem is that response is necessary. Could you imagine if there was a coordinated effort to repeal the 14th amendment every time Chicago set a new murder record? The correlation between the stimulus and the response is tenuous at best, the efficacy of the response minimal at best, and the unintended consequences would be disastrous… And the discussion about murder rates would be completely forgotten during the very important defence of civil liberties, at least until the next time it happened.

          And the next time America faces a terrorist attack… but the terrorists use knives, or vehicles, or pressure cookers…. Are we going to ban knives or vehicles or pressure cookers? Are we going to do our damnedest to ignore the problem? Or can we finally have a discussion about Islam?

          • My understanding is that the Amendments can be changed. Is that correct? We have to change both the mindset and the way we legislate guns. The process will take decades before the sanity sets in.

            • Sure…but no Bill of Rights provision has ever been amended or excised, and there hasn’t been any other kind of amendment in 50 years…and it was uncontroversial. Realistically, there is no chance that the Second Amendment will be repealed, and the day the Fifth Amendment is appealed is the day the US becomes a dictatorship.

              Now to parse this amazing sentence:

              “We have to change both the mindset”
              —you mean culture? This is a gun culture with a gun history. Americans are raised to believe they can. in a pinch, do what they need to do to survive and right wrongs, and this is core to making the nation what it is–bold, risk-taking, unique, independent, free, and violent. Short of mass brainwashing, this aspect of the culture isn’t likely to fade away, to which I say GOOD.

              “and the way we legislate guns.” Meaningless. What does this mean? “the way” still has to be Constitutional. Due Process. Equal Protection. Legislation cannot simultaneously protect the rights of law abiding sane people while abridging those of law abiding bad and crazy people. Too bad, I know.

              “The process…” What process? You mean hysterical misleading news coverage? Scaremongering? If “the process’ involves law, honesty, common sense and facts, not much will change.

              “before the sanity sets in.”
              Sanity is when your beliefs and conduct is consistent with the vast majority of the culture. Respecting guns and gun ownership is sanity. Freaking out over isolated shootings is not.

              will take decades before the sanity sets in.

              and the way we legislate guns. The process will take decades before the sanity sets in.

              • Again….things can change and culture can change and it has many times. Expect it with guns.The hysteria I see is also prevelent by the opposition to gun legislation. I see it on both sides.The battle you are fighting, Jack, will eventually be lost. You won’t see it and neither will I, but it will most certainly happen.

                Yes – I despise the gun culture and support any and all legislation that will impact said culture. The legislation may be small, but eventually it will gather traction and that is why the gun culture is doomed.

                Years ago I was involved in anti-smoking legislation in Massachusetts. Our first goal was no smoking in super markets. That certainly has changed as has the mind set.

                  • Too bad you couldn’t miss the connection between the two I guess it doesn’t fit your narrative. The smoking issue started out small and incremental changes were made until we have the situation we have today. You see the same with gun legislation there has been any incremental changes. You should know since you obviously oppose probably every single one of them as do most of the posters on this site. It won’t do any good because eventually gun legislation will be a done deal and you will see significant changes. It may take many decades but it will be done.

                    • Jack already explained this better than I can, and I think this discussion has reached the pigeon chess point.

                    • So, what you’re saying is…the changes you are proposing now are intended and meant to be…solely…the means by which we start a slippery slope to a total ban? Did you just give justification for every single person that says “They’re trying to take our guns!”? Bravo.

                • 1. You’re wrong. The gun culture isn’t changing. Many Americans have always hated guns, especially women. When the ten most popular movies in any year don’t include at least half that involve guns, come back to me. Of course, be then you’ll have tentacles and a head like a Peanuts character. Here was this year’s:

                  1. Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
                  2. Jurassic World (2015)
                  3. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

                  4. Inside Out (2015)
                  5. Furious 7 (2015)
                  6. Minions (2015)
                  7. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (2015)
                  8. The Martian (2015)
                  9. Cinderella (2015)
                  10. Spectre (2015)

                  That six of 10, including the top three, and two of the non-gun movies were cartoons.

                  2. Smoking is irrelevant. We didn’t fight WWI, WWII and the Civil War with cigarettes. We didn’t expand the nation using cigarettes. If you think these are equivalent or barely so, no wonder you have a warped understanding of guns. There is no right to smoke; and we can’t even ban cigarettes, talk about political will, despite the fact that they are deadly (and kill more people than guns.) You can really see no more social utility to firearms than to an addictive, poisonous habit. That’s the biggest reason your prediction will never come true: the anti-gun zealots don’t know what they are talking about, and don’t care to know. They think they know enough.

              • Reminder all that has to happen is for the Supreme Court to reverse it’s ruling on Heller 2008, again making the 2nd Amendment a collective ‘State’s Right’ to raise militia to counterbalance a standing federal Army. That would accord with, the literal word, the intent of those who framed it and ‘least mischief’. And we know some folks in BLM who have good test cases that could raise the issue of ‘can’t give due process to a suspect’s corpse’. So months to years, not decades.

                You’ll recall it was a 4/4 split, two dissents
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

                We exchanged comments about this the other day. You remember?

                • It’s not that easy or frequent to overturn Supreme Court opinions. It very seldom happens, especially with recent opinions. The Court avoids it, because it undermines the integrity of the law. It’s possible, but not anywhere as likely as activists think. Stare decisus is a big deal—once there’s an opinion, the opinion is presumably the law of the land end even dissenting Justices are bound to treat it as such. It would be classic jurisprudence for the court to decide another case based on Heller, rather than using it as an opportunity to overrule it. I can’t count the opinions that everybody assumed would be overturned if the Court’s slant changed. None of them. So far, not even the affirmative action cases, which everyone assumed were dead.

                  Hope away, but I’d say you’re naive. And many, many justices have proved less predicable than assumed.

                  • The best that can be hoped for by the anti-gun crowd is that the court decides that concealed carry isn’t a right.

                    • It absolutely isn’t a right and no one says it is. Even the states which have so-called “constitutional carry” limit that right to the established residents of their state. In my state of Colorado, our state constitution explicitly states that concealed carry isn’t meant to be allowed as a constitutionally protected activity.

                      Now, what traditionally has happened with the court is that carrying a firearm in some way has to be permitted, but even then, there’s holes where carrying just isn’t possible for some people. Specifically, if you visited Denver from a non-reciprocity state. Denver’s “open-carry” ban has been upheld on challenge, so the only carry there is concealed. Since CO only issues concealed permits to Residents, it’s a de facto ban on anyone from a state without a reciprocating permitting system.

                      Of course, those types of bans are quite common, especially on the east coast.

                    • Well, the 7th Circuit would disagree that it isn’t a right (they ruled Illinois’s lack of Conceal Carry to be unconstitutional). The 9th disagreed (saying the de facto ban in CA is perfectly fine.

                      I disagree with you that it isn’t a right. If one accepts that guns are for self defense, then it naturally follows that you have a right to defend yourself outside of your own home, and for that you would need to… You know… Have a gun with you.

                      I’m not a huge fan of Open Carry. I think it’s more than a little juvenile, and invites trouble. Conceal Carry, however, is perfectly fine. California’s insanely restrictive “may issue” is going to end up in the Supreme Court, and we’ll see what comes of it.

                      The issue isn’t with a state not permitting non-residents (so long as they recognize permits from other states – I’m looking at you, Illinois), it is the effective ban against residents getting a permit.

                      I’m hoping that “may issue” is struck down, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

                  • Justices are unpredictable, and long may it remain so. If we can solve partisanship in the Supreme Court at the same time using the two vacancies as strictly lawyer like and overt neutrals that would alleviate at least the anxiety on the left that the 2008 judgement was ‘bent’. Legitimacy is important on this and many other rulings. So, there is every good reason to put the question, even as a request for a judicial review of law in the area of self-defence. I think.

            • “My understanding is that the Amendments can be changed. Is that correct?”

              Sure… But somewhere along the line it would behove someone attempting to remove rights in the constitution to consider what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. The items in the constitution weren’t put there by stupid people by accident. “The amendments can be changed” is a facile, dimwitted argument. “The Amendments can be changed” So what? We have a duty to? How do you feel about freedom of speech, or the press, the right to association, emancipation, due process?

              “We have to change both the mindset and the way we legislate guns.”

              No we don’t.

              “The process will take decades before the sanity sets in.”

              And then you’ll finally tell me I was right.

              See? That’s what happens when you write in idiotic platitudes and bumper stickers: Some asshole can just write the exact opposite of what you wrote and have just as much legitimacy as you did.

              • Yes…I notice a proliferation of that on this site.

                I feel your pain since the guns will eventually be a novelty from history found only in books. Legislation is gaining traction and it will be incremental. Sometimes the greatest of changes – Gay Rights/Marriage, Civil Rights, suffrage and many others take time. The battles are small and some are won and some are lost but eventually guns will just be a very bad memory.

                I had mentioned smoking legislation I was involved with and we apprached it as a public health issue and I now see some anti-gun proponents are doing the same. Smart….very smart move.

                • “guns will eventually be a novelty from history found only in books”

                  Methinks you are smoking something stronger than a Marlboro Lite.

                • It’s clear that you want to see this through your own biases, and reality is completely irrelevant, Rich. You are essentially singing “Imagine.” OK, enjoy your fantasy. “Legislation is gaining traction,” no, it really isn’t, because now nobody believes that gun regulators want anything but total confiscation and banning. Your assertions are like the Soviets claiming that history was on their side, and that they would bury us. Lost of people believed them, too.

                  • The biggest favor the pro-gun lobby was ever done was the anti-gun crowd finally admitting they want to ban guns.

                • Rick M., you are the reason conservatives don’t believe liberals when they say “No one wants to take your guns.” And the reason I’ve stopped saying that.

          • Nope, we can never have that discussion as long as political correctness rules the roost. We can never point out that it’s Islam’s holy books that say kill and behead those who don’t believe as you do, with NO countervailing New Testament of love. We can never point out that it’s Islam that’s all about reducing those who don’t agree with you to second-class status (dhimmitude) or killing them.

            We can never point out that it’s Islam that reduces women to sex objects and practices gender apartheid at the mildest, female genital mutilation at the worst. We can never point out that it’s Islam that is stoning gays to death and throwing them off buildings, and has promulgated laws that mandate execution for gay sex. We can never point out that in the fifteen years since 9/11 Islam has been behind half-a-dozen more terrorist attacks on this continent plus a possible lone wolf plot against the UK Royal Family (for whom a Royal Family murder would be roughly the equivalent of the Kennedy assassination here). We can never mention the poor treatment of Christians and other sects in Syria, Egypt and Iraq, where the Muslims don’t grant minority rights.

            We definitely can’t point out that Islam tried to conquer Europe outright three centuries before the Crusades, and that the Crusades were at least in part a reaction to that assault.

            Instead we have to hear blather about how some miniscule percentage of Muslims are actual terrorists, how the Arab world was some model of civilization while Europe was in the Dark Ages, and how we have to understand their view of things. Yes, maybe the chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack is less than that of being killed in an auto accident, but that misses the point that we can’t stop people from driving every day while we can stop terrorism.

            You know, when you think about it, Islam is a cult of arrested sixteen year olds – do what you want, have sex with whoever and they don’t get to say no, kill anyone who disagrees with you, and you’re six degrees better than anyone else because you say so.

            • Nope, we can never have that discussion as long as political correctness rules the roost. We can never point out that it’s Islam’s holy books that say kill and behead those who don’t believe as you do, with NO countervailing New Testament of love. We can never point out that it’s Islam that’s all about reducing those who don’t agree with you to second-class status (dhimmitude) or killing them.

              So you’re saying they think like you and behave the way you fantasize about behaving?

              If your assessment were true, why would you dislike them?

              • Imagine if while the asshats waving “God Hates Fags” signs were parading, the left instead of holding them to task told the fags to be less faggy, because they were incenting the Christians. We don’t accept that anymore.

                See… I think we have a roadmap to success here, and that’s been the slow degradation of Christianity’s political power: We didn’t settle for dogma, we expected reason, and if the faith wasn’t going to supply reason, they were ridiculed, defanged and left impotent. Believe what you want, wear what you want, say what you want, but their ability to use power to affect non-adherents is in decline, and rightly so.

                • If I said the same thing about Christians that Steve-o says about Muslims 2/3’rd of the commenters here would blow their tops.

                  You want to go after people who cut off heads? Good. Hunt the fuckers down and stop them from doing it again.

                  If you want to completely strip all religions of political power I will kiss you on the mouth and use tongue.

                  If you want make public policy dedicated to shitting on people because they happen to pray facing Mecca, we have a problem.

                  • Public policy? No. You’ll very rarely hear me pushing for the government to do anything. They’re bad at it.

                    I think we as a society need to stop making excuses for one of the worst cesspools of ideology in the modern era. I think we need to stop twisting ourselves into pretzels to avoid stating the obvious: the kind of Islam we are importing is anathemical to our culture, and so either we ask them to change to fit in, or we do, and quite simply, I don’t think I’ll sign up to die any sooner than you’ll take a cleaver to your clit and start wearing full burkas.

                    “If you want to completely strip all religions of political power I will kiss you on the mouth and use tongue.”

                    Come at me baby!

                • You might have something here – if it weren’t for the fact that Islam holds whole nations under its sway and the Koran is the Constitution there. You might also have something if it weren’t for the fact that evangelical Christians have zero legal protection in the West, whereas the Muslims are everyone on the left’s fave victim group and must be accommodated in every way possible – restaurants not advertising bacon, public Christmas observances dialed back or stopped, and so on. In the past it might have been possible to increasingly westernize the Muslims that came here to work, but it’s tougher and tougher to do that as easier flying back to wherever and skyping with relatives back home makes the link to the old country and the old ways that much harder to break.

                  • “evangelical Christians have zero legal protection in the West,”

                    The hell, you say?

                    Evangelical Christians have exactly equal legal protections as Muslims in the United States.

                    • Yes, I say. When last did you hear of a Christian suing because he didn’t get Good Friday off, or couldn’t take a few for personal devotions during the day. Oh, and to bring it really home, Mateen got away with saying stuff that would have gotten any other employee fired and acting in a manner that would have gotten any other security officer’s authorizations revoked precisely because he was a Muslim, and everyone was quaking in their boots at the possibility of being politically incorrect and getting sued because they dinged a member of the most favored victim class. I personally oversaw the sacking of a wannabe (i.e. American black, as opposed to Middle Eastern) Muslim Class II police officer and identification officer who tried to hide behind that garbage. Everyone else told me be careful, he’s a member of a protected class. I saw right through him and exposed him for the coward and bully he was. I consider that my own personal Arsuf.

                    • LEGAL protections, sure… But surely you aren’t going to disagree that there is a lot of social stigma attached to Christian behaviours that seems to be excused the moment it’s attached to Islam. And the moral relativism… It’s staggering.

                      Sally Kohn, possibly the dumbest Jewish lesbian on the planet, who should fire her hairdresser immediately, just did a virtue signalling parade on air comparing Christian bakers refusals to sell us homos some of their sweet sweet bigot cakes to the Pulse shooting. It’s just shameless stupidity.

            • “Islam” hasn’t done any of that. Islam is a concept. Many Muslims have done what you accuse Islam of doing; many have not. If Islam commands Muslims to do these terrible things, why are there so many Muslims who don’t do them? You look at Muslims in America, and they’re by and large just as assimilated as anyone else. How is this possible? And how can we get more Muslims around the world to practice their religion the way American Muslims do?

              After all, Islam isn’t going anywhere–it’s still growing. You’re never going to convince over a billion people to give up their religion by trashing it. Shouldn’t we be looking at the peaceful Muslims and highlighting what they do, so that they can lead by example?

              I’m imagining two Muslims reading your list of grievances: one is a member of ISIS, one is a college Muslim feminist (aka: every Muslim I know). The first reads it and thinks, “Yep! That is exactly what Islam is! None can be truly Muslim unless they follow this path! Spread the word, so that all will know this is the only way to be Muslim.” The second reads it and thinks, “No, this is not my religion. This bears no relation to my life, my family, my practices, my mosque, or the way I see others.” Which view do we really want to promote? Which view helps ISIS recruit?

              • Zzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! You only need to read the news to see what’s going on and who’s doing it, and the 90% of the Muslims who aren’t actively doing these atrocities are either looking the other way or making excuses for those who do (“blah blah blah Iraq, blah blah blah Palestine…). And assimilated? Hahahahaha, that’s why the streets of my city are full of halal butchers and prayer oil shops, with both foreign and local wannabe Muslims walking about, the men with their skullcaps and henna in their beards and the women in full niqab, muttering about how corrupt America is. Yup, really assimilated, those.

                I frankly don’t give a damn what two Muslims reading my list think. I speak the truth, and if they want to admit it, deny it, or spin it, they may do so. The only thing I want the Isis guy to do is stay the hell away from the west, where everything is a target, and I’m really not interested in excuses from some confrontational coed in a headscarf telling me how bad my country is and how unfairly she and her family were treated and how we need to be more accepting of them and their ways. You need America, we don’t need you, and if you don’t like the way we do things, you are welcome to hop a plane back to wherever you came from.

                  • Why? Lotta -bergs and -steins shooting up gay nightclubs and such and blowing themselves up near schools? Because I must have missed those news stories.

                    • If they were, would that make kosher bakeries something to complain about? Would bagels become evil?

                  • That’s moronic. I have yet to meet, see, or become aware of a single Orthodox Jew who spoke ill of America as an institution. I’ve seen a few Hasidim walking around, usually on business involving real estate or jewels, and though I do think they are unusual, they don’t piss me off because I don’t have to worry about them hating me because of what I am or doing anything worse than fighting hard to get the best deal they possibly can (they do have a few bad apples like Charles Kushner, who overreached). Never seen a kosher bakery, but I have been to a few kosher delis. Apart from the absence of ham, the occasional Israel tourism calendar on the wall, the menorah behind the counter toward the end of the year, being closed a day or two in September, and their pickles being a tad garlicky for my tastes, not much different than Rosario and Franco down the block. Frank doesn’t speak ill of America as he slices the provolone and Yoni doesn’t say bad things about the Constitution as he ladles out the matzoh ball soup. Walk into Hamid’s butcher shop, though, and the bulleting board is all Koran over Constitution, Allah has the Answers, and other slogans like that, not to mention pictures of current PLO figures and Sadr. Who ya gonna trust?

                    • Steve-O:

                      “Walk into Hamid’s butcher shop, though, and the bulleting board is all Koran over Constitution, Allah has the Answers, and other slogans like that, not to mention pictures of current PLO figures and Sadr.”

                      I think people are getting confused by your comments because you keep conflating truly alarming things with totally harmless ones. “Koran over Constitution” and pictures of PLO figures are signs of radicalism, and I would be disturbed by them too; “Allah has the Answers” is not, it’s merely an expression of religious belief, literally no different from “God has the Answers.”

                      Taken along with your earlier complaints about halal butchers and such, it makes it hard to distinguish between what is genuine concern over radicalism and what is simply bigotry on your part against morally neutral cultural practices which are different from yours.

                    • It’s not about bigotry. It’s about failure to assimilate on the part of those who come from abroad and desire to separate on the part of American (usually African-American) wannabes who come over to Islam. This is America. My ancestors came here from Italy and Ireland, and a few from England. They knew they were in a different country and that they had to adapt. They learned English and took whatever jobs they could get. A lot of them even fought for their adopted country almost right off the bat (the Irish brigades get most of the press, but the Union Army was also full of Italian American units like the Garibaldi Guards). They brought up their kids to fit in and be Americans, and by the time the second generation were grown, they were as much American as anyone whose family went back to the Pilgrims and their first loyalty was here.

                      Yes, Officer Beneducci kept a St. Jude prayer card in his hat that might look odd to his Protestant colleagues if they saw it, and yes, Sergeant O’Halloran might have knelt before Father Corby to receive absolution before battle, which the Episcopalian and Lutheran soldiers might have scratched their heads at. They DIDN’T make their differences so obvious as to get in the way of acceptance, nor try to push them on their adopted nation by claiming most favored victim status. They definitely didn’t openly express contempt for their adoptive country. And when’s the last time any of these communities who fled violent conflict in Europe brought the violence here?

                      Fort Hood and Chattanooga and San Bernardino and Orlando were all acts of terrorism directed at the adopted country, not by IRA hardline adherents mad because the US stands with the UK, not by Italian irredentists still angry because of the disputed littoral, and NOT by Jews unhappy with America’s approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but by MUSLIMS – in some cases second-generation Muslim citizens who were BORN here. This isn’t about being different. This isn’t about bigotry on my part. This is about a poisonous ideology that isn’t compatible with the American way of doing things that its adherents are passing down generation to generation even after they are established here.

                      It’s not bigoted to raise an eyebrow at a statement that the US would be that much better off if it “gave up corruption and united under the banner of Allahu Akbar” (an actual statement I heard a coworker toss off as casually as one might talk about a soccer game). It’s not bigoted to be concerned around figures in robes who could be hiding anything and masks that make you wonder why they need to hide their identities. It’s not bigoted to be uncomfortable in someone’s shop if you see a framed picture of a guy in a turban and beard who might or might not be bin Laden on the wall. It’s not bigoted to bristle at a statement about Israel having no right to exist (or something more outlandish). It’s not bigoted to wonder what goes on in the back room of that new mosque with the claque of congregants who all have long beards and foreign accents.

                    • You are, again, conflating harmless behavior with clearly offensive behavior. Some of the concerns you listed above are legitimate. Some are bigoted. You are poisoning your own legitimate concerns by bringing up the bigoted ones.

                    • Are you going to actually address any of what I said, or are you just going to keep disregarding everything I say whole cloth because you deem some of my statements bigoted? That’s frankly the lazy way out of a discussion and the cheap way to avoid addressing an opponent’s points, like a millennial saying “you lost me at “x”” and then ignoring the rest of whatever the other person says.

                    • I’m not sure what your point is, other than “Muslims frighten me.” I don’t know where you live and work, but your statements about what you hear and see Muslims do don’t ring true to me; as I showed you, polls show American Muslims are assimilated into mainstream American culture. Yes, when you describe Muslims as “figures in robes who could be hiding anything and masks that make you wonder why they need to hide their identities,” that does damage your credibility and creates skepticism that you actually know what you’re talking about (Muslims don’t wear “masks,” and it’s irrational to wonder what they have under their robes–you can hide just as much under a jacket).

                      Ditto for this line: “It’s not bigoted to be uncomfortable in someone’s shop if you see a framed picture of a guy in a turban and beard who might or might not be bin Laden on the wall.” It either is bin Laden or it’s not, and given that he has one of the world’s most recognizable faces, I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove other than you can’t tell Muslims apart.

                      And how is this: “It’s not bigoted to raise an eyebrow at a statement that the US would be that much better off if it “gave up corruption and united under the banner of Allahu Akbar””

                      …Any different from a Christian coworker saying the US would be better off if it gave up corruption and united under God?

                      So you haven’t really said anything worth addressing, other than sharing your irrational and paranoid fears of interacting with Muslims.

              • “After all, Islam isn’t going anywhere–it’s still growing. You’re never going to convince over a billion people to give up their religion by trashing it.”

                Of course you can, that’s why progressives continue to harangue Christians, right?

                “You look at Muslims in America, and they’re by and large just as assimilated as anyone else.”

                Bull. Shit. A 2013 Gallup poll found that 1001 out of 1001 American Muslims (That is 100%) found that homosexuality was an ‘unacceptable life choice’, 51% wanted it to be made illegal, 39% believed that women should always obey their husbands. The myth of the “moderate Muslim” is a tool used to blur the problems their culture produces. Statistic after statistic show that regardless of the geography they occupy, Muslims in large numbers believe some fucking chilling things. Maybe most American Muslims wouldn’t out of hand kill me, congratulations, want a cookie? There’s still a lot of shitty worldviews that deserve derision from conservative and progressive alike.

                “No, this is not my religion. This bears no relation to my life, my family, my practices, my mosque, or the way I see others.”

                • Oh it gets worse – let’s not forget that a fair amount of Muslims, though mostly in the Middle East, still believe in the blood libel, it’s even been in the papers over there as fact. I ask, who in the right mind would defend a culture that would see the men here put against a wall and shot and the women stuffed into burqas? Who in their right mind would defend a culture that would see me, a Catholic, reduced to dhimmitude, barred from most professions, forced to wear an identifying belt, and forced to pay a tax that had to be collected in a humiliating way every year? Who in their right mind would defend a culture that says they want peace, when peace is defined as Israel and a big pile of dead Jews? I’ve heard Muslims, lawyers in fact, say that they are good friends with Jews in one breath and talk about destroying Israel in the next. I had to use every ounce of restraint on that grimmest of Wednesdays almost fifteen years ago when one such man greeted me, ashen-faced and still unsure of the fates of family and friends, with “Sorry about the victims yesterday but, blah blah blah, Palestine…”

                • “Bull. Shit. A 2013 Gallup poll found that 1001 out of 1001 American Muslims (That is 100%) found that homosexuality was an ‘unacceptable life choice’, 51% wanted it to be made illegal, 39% believed that women should always obey their husbands.”

                  I was unable to find such a poll. I did find an article about a 2009 Gallup poll of 1001 British Muslims who held that view of homosexuality, but no such poll of American Muslims.

                  https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

                  A Pew poll done in 2011 found very different opinions of homosexuality among American Muslims: 39% said homosexuality should be accepted in society, while 45% said it should not be accepted in society.

                  http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/section-5-political-opinions-and-social-values/

                  This is lower than acceptance of homosexuality among the general population, but actually higher than support for acceptance of homosexuality among white evangelical protestants (34%).

                  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/12/support-steady-for-same-sex-marriage-and-acceptance-of-homosexuality/

                  This, along with the rest of the results of the Pew poll of American Muslims, supports my stance that American Muslims are very well assimilated into American society. Britain and the rest of Europe is another story; cultural segregation is a much bigger problem there. But the Muslim ghettos that exist there are not a problem in America.

              • So either you are prone to meaningless hyperbole or you don’t actually know any gun lovers.**

                I don’t know many folks who conceal carry that also don’t carry at least one pocket knife. Several that I see every day have more than one. They are very popular on campuses at the moment because you can carry a knife here (soon they won’t need to but still will probably carry a knife anyways). Hell, half the girls on campus I know have a one-handed lock-back on them.

                What on God Great Green Creation makes you think a gun lover wouldn’t support someone carrying a knife? We tend to not recommend certain things, but saying “you can’t do that” would be 100% out of character**. Some argue the efficacy of, say, a stun gun or whatever, but you do you.

                You should stop projecting. It makes you look silly.

                * – “ammosexuals”? Oh, I get it… You’re a jackass. I made the mistake of thinking you were somehow rational. I see my mistake now.

                ** – I will admit to supporting the prohibition against mace/pepper spray in classrooms and in dorms, but mainly because it truly is indiscriminate – you will absolutely blind yourself along with everyone else, and Christ help you if you do it outside and the wind is in the wrong direction. Other than that, you feel free.

  2. There isn’t any, Jack. This is the lesson of Rahm Emanuel being put into practice yet again. At least the political figures have a non-ethical reason for doing this: that it is a very powerful way to capture the votes of several key voting blocs and keep this nation DEEP blue for four more years.

    However, in the first Star Wars movie (you know, while George Lucas was still involved) cynic Han Solo calls last Jedi Obi-wan Kenobi a fool, to which Kenobi retorts “who’s the greater fool, the fool, or the fool who follows him?” I have no idea why a good chunk of my friends on social media are cheering this behavior on, calling it heroic, and hailing Lewis like he is some kind of god of peace and harmony. Actually I do – they are idealists who think with their hearts, and, like the idiots who hailed Ira Einhorn while he beat his girlfriends, the femfools who bowed and scraped to Clinton while he got hummers in the Oval Office, and, on a darker note, the crowds who waved the red banner when Lenin promised “peace, bread and land,” they let themselves be led by anything that sounds good.

  3. “Article the third… Congress shall make no law…abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    See, the expectation was that it would be the people who would assemble or petition the government, not that the government would assemble and petition itself.

  4. Why can not this “something” be “institut[ing] a pass law system and
    limit the movements of young Black males…mak[ing] them live in barbed
    wire enclosed hostels so that the police could better control their movements”. Because it would be “unconstitutional and WRONG”? I mean, we have to do “something”, right?

    The thing is, if John Lewis and elizabeth Warren get what they want, we open the door to “institut[ing] a pass law system and
    limit the movements of young Black males” and .”mak[ing] them live in barbed wire enclosed hostels so that the police could better control their movements”

  5. I have to say the Obama administration’s relentless and well-coordinated efforts at misdirection since the shooting in Orlando have been incredibly successful. We had congress men and women sitting on the floor as if they are kindergartens shouting “shame” and no one is talking about Islamic terrorists and their ability to radicalize young American muslims to the extent they are willing to murder Americans. This entire gun control debate is specious and ill timed as in “While Nero fiddled…” Pathetic.

  6. As far as I know Jack, there is no actual pending legislation before the house. The senate didn’t pass anything for them to ratify, and no one has introduced it on their end. The grandstanding is pointless on top of everything else.

    Maybe I just fail at searching, but NO media outlets have provided anything specific, and some have even mentioned that the goal of the sit in is vague.

  7. I lost respect for John Lewis over 20 years ago when he called the Republicans Nazis for trying to reform the badly broken welfare system. I think he truly believes the GOP or Nazis, or he is willing to make that claim for political gain. When people believe you are fighting Nazis, a lot becomes justified in a person’s mind.

    But that ignores the bigger picture, Jack. The ground truth from the big picture is that the entire Democratic Party has become totalitarian. It isn’t just the discarding of due process to deny Second Amendment rights. It’s their war on the First Amendment as well, from compelling a photographer to photograph a same-sex wedding (compelled expression), to using the IRS to target Tea Party groups (punishing people for petitioning for redress of grievances), to the Attorneys General targeting conservative thinks tanks for disputing a certain view about the environment (suppressing free speech), to utter failure to prevent rioters from assaulting people at a Trump rally (failure to protect the right to peaceably assemble).

    They need to be stopped. Period.

  8. It seems like the Democrats are feeling around for weak points in the Bill of Rights these days. I don’t own a gun; I don’t think I’ve ever touched one. But if a political party can exploit a tragedy to suspend someone’s Constitutional rights without a trial, that sets a dangerous precedent that will have the statists hungry for more.

    What about “harmful” speech? That seems to be in a popular topic among progressives who want to feel moral without actually bettering themselves. If guns aren’t a “right” because they can hurt someone, what about saying wrong things that are totally wrong and shouldn’t be said? Why should anyone have a right to do that? If only there were some way to designate certain kinds of speech as, I dunno, “hate speech” or something…think of what government could do to clean up society!

    I’m a Christian, and one of the creepiest things about the aftermath of Orlando is how a gay Muslim Democrat can kill 50 people and somehow cause a groundswell of vitriol from the Left against Christians. “Religion” did this, apparently. “Religious” people must be stopped, they’re poisoning the country; if it wasn’t for them, as a collective, there would never be a shooting. I’m hearing this all around, in the workplace, on TV, from some very angry secularists who see a golden opportunity in all this. I can’t imagine how much more scary it must be for the average muslim. That’s why I’m all for gun rights. For me, for muslims, whether or not you’re on some drummed up terror watch list, for everybody who isn’t an actual criminal, or wife-beating alcoholic reporter. Keep the Constitution strong, it’s best for everyone.

  9. It appears that the sitters-in are going to be at it for a while. They are eating Chik-Fil-A. So, that’s a good thing. I wouldn’t want them to suffer too much for their principles.

    jvb

    • I read in Jack’s next post that the sitters-in have stood up and quit. Maybe they chose Chik-Fil-A because they didn’t want to look like they were eating crow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.